1: %%
2: %% Beginning of file 'sample.tex'
3: %%
4: %% Modified 2005 December 5
5: %%
6: %% This is a sample manuscript marked up using the
7: %% AASTeX v5.x LaTeX 2e macros.
8:
9: %% The first piece of markup in an AASTeX v5.x document
10: %% is the \documentclass command. LaTeX will ignore
11: %% any data that comes before this command.
12:
13: %% The command below calls the preprint style
14: %% which will produce a one-column, single-spaced document.
15: %% Examples of commands for other substyles follow. Use
16: %% whichever is most appropriate for your purposes.
17: %%
18: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
19:
20: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
21:
22: %%\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
23:
24: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
25:
26: %% \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
27:
28: %% Sometimes a paper's abstract is too long to fit on the
29: %% title page in preprint2 mode. When that is the case,
30: %% use the longabstract style option.
31:
32: %% \documentclass[preprint2,longabstract]{aastex}
33:
34: %% If you want to create your own macros, you can do so
35: %% using \newcommand. Your macros should appear before
36: %% the \begin{document} command.
37: %%
38: %% If you are submitting to a journal that translates manuscripts
39: %% into SGML, you need to follow certain guidelines when preparing
40: %% your macros. See the AASTeX v5.x Author Guide
41: %% for information.
42:
43: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}
44: \newcommand{\myemail}{skywalker@galaxy.far.far.away}
45:
46:
47: \usepackage{subfigure}
48:
49: \shorttitle{The full curvature effect}
50:
51: \shortauthors{Qin}
52:
53: \begin{document}
54:
55: \title{The full curvature effect expected in early X-ray
56: afterglow emission of gamma-ray bursts}
57:
58: \author{Y.-P. Qin\altaffilmark{1,2}}
59:
60: \altaffiltext{1}{Center for Astrophysics, Guangzhou University,
61: Guangzhou 510006, P. R. China; ypqin@gzhu.edu.cn}
62:
63: \altaffiltext{2}{Physics Department, Guangxi University, Nanning
64: 530004, P. R. China}
65:
66: \begin{abstract}
67: We explore the influence of the full curvature effect on the flux of
68: early X-ray afterglow of gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) in cases when the
69: spectrum of the intrinsic emission is a power-law. We find that the
70: well-known $t^{-(2+\beta)}$ curve is present only when the intrinsic
71: emission is extremely short or the emission arises from an
72: exponential cooling. The time scale of this curve is independent of
73: the Lorentz factor. The resulting light curve would contain two
74: phases when the intrinsic emission has a power-law spectrum and a
75: temporal power-law profile with infinite duration. The first phase
76: is a rapid decay one where the light curve well follows the
77: $t^{-(2+\beta)}$ curve. The second is a shallow decay phase where
78: the power-law index of the light curve is obviously smaller than
79: that in the first phase. The start of the shallow phase is strictly
80: constrained by the fireball radius, which in turn, can put a lower
81: limit to the latter. In the case when the temporal power-law
82: emission lasts a limited interval of time, there will be a third
83: phase after the $t^{-(2+\beta)}$ curve and the shallow decay phase,
84: which is much steeper than the shallow phase. As an example of
85: application, we fit the XRT data of GRB 050219A with our model and
86: show that the curvature effect alone can roughly account for this
87: burst. Although fitting parameters can not be uniquely determined
88: due to various choices of fitting, a lower limit of the fireball
89: radius of this burst can be estimated, which is $\sim 10^{14}cm$.
90: \end{abstract}
91:
92: \keywords{gamma-rays: bursts --- gamma-rays: theory --- relativity}
93:
94: \section{Introduction}
95:
96: The canonical X-ray afterglow light curve containing five components
97: after the prompt emission phase is a great finding of Swift
98: (Chincarini et al. 2005; Nousek et al. 2006; O'Brien et al. 2006;
99: Zhang et al. 2006; Zhang 2007). The first of the five is the
100: so-called ``steep decay phase'' which generally extends to $\sim
101: (10^{2}-10^{3})s$, with a temporal decay slope typically $-3$ or
102: much steeper (Vaughan et al. 2006; Cusumano et al. 2006; O'Brien et
103: al. 2006).
104:
105: A hint in this phase suggesting the emission of high latitude
106: fireball surface is that it is typically smoothly connected to the
107: prompt emission phase (Tagliaferri et al. 2005; Barthelmy et al.
108: 2005; Liang et al. 2006). Generally, the steep decay phase was
109: interpreted as a consequence of the so-called curvature effect
110: (Fenimore et al. 1996; Kumar \& Panaitescu 2000; Dermer 2004; Dyks
111: et al. 2005; Butler \& Kocevski 2007a; Liang et al. 2006; Panaitescu
112: et al. 2006; Zhang et al. 2006; Zhang et al. 2007). The curvature
113: effect is a combined effect that includes the delay of time and the
114: shifting of the intrinsic spectrum as well as other relevant factors
115: of an expanding fireball (see Qin et al. 2006 for a detailed
116: explanation). The effect was intensively studied recently in the
117: prompt gamma-ray phase, where the profile of the full light curve of
118: pulses, the spectral lags, the power-law relation between the pulse
119: width and energy, and the evolution of the hardness ratio curve are
120: concerned (Sari \& Piran 1997; Qin 2002; Ryde \& Petrosian 2002;
121: Kocevski et al. 2003; Qin \& Lu 2005; Shen et al. 2005; Lu et al.
122: 2006; Peng et al. 2006; Qin et al. 2004, 2005, 2006).
123:
124: As early as a decade ago, Fenimore et al. (1996) found that, due to
125: the curvature effect, light curves arising from the emission of an
126: infinitely thin shell would be a power-law of observational time
127: when the rest-frame photon number spectrum is a power-law and the
128: emission is within an infinitesimal time interval. In this case, the
129: two power-law indexes are
130: related by $\alpha=2+\beta$, where $\alpha$ is the light curve index and $%
131: \beta$ the spectral index. In concerning the X-ray afterglow
132: emission, Kumar \& Panaitescu (2000) also found that, due to the
133: curvature effect, the light curve of a shocked heated fireball shell
134: radiating with a power-law spectrum within the observational band
135: (i.e., the X-ray band in the early afterglow observation) is a
136: power-law of time as well and relation $\alpha=2+\beta$ holds in
137: this situation.
138:
139: As revealed in Fig. 7 of Nousek et al. (2006), relation
140: $\alpha=2+\beta$ is roughly in agreement with the data in the steep
141: decay phase of some Swift bursts. However, the figure also shows
142: that real relations between the two indexes of some bursts
143: significantly deviate from the $\alpha=2+\beta$ curve. This might be
144: due to the ill re-setting of time that should be set to the real
145: time when the central engine restarts (see Liang et al. 2006). In
146: addition, more or less subtracting the underlying afterglow
147: contribution would lead to other values of the temporal index
148: $\alpha$ (for a detailed explanation, see Zhang 2007).
149:
150: We notice that the derivation of relation $\alpha=2+\beta$ in
151: previous papers is based on the main part of the curvature effect.
152: Does it still hold (or, in what situation it would still hold) when
153: the full curvature effect is considered? This motivates our
154: investigation below. The structure of the paper is as follows. In
155: Section 2, we present a general analysis on the full curvature
156: effect in cases when the intrinsic emission is a power-law. In
157: Section 3, we discuss light curves of power-law emission associated
158: with several typical intrinsic temporal profiles. Presented in
159: Section 4 is an example of application of our model. Conclusions are
160: presented in the last section.
161:
162: \section{Light curves of fireballs arising from the intrinsic emission with a power-law
163: spectrum}
164:
165: Observation of the emission arising from an expending fireball would
166: be influenced by the delay of time of different areas of the
167: fireball surface, the variation of the intensity due to the growing
168: of the fireball radius, the variation of the time contracted factor
169: and the shifting of the intrinsic spectrum associated with the angle
170: to the line of sight. Taking all these factors into account, one
171: comes to a full knowledge of the so-called curvature effect (see
172: also Qin et al. 2006 for a detailed explanation). Consider a
173: constant expanding fireball shell emitting within proper time
174: interval $t_{0,\min }\leq t_{0}\leq t_{0,\max }$ and over the
175: fireball area confined by $\theta _{min}\leq \theta \leq \theta
176: _{max}$, where $\theta $ is the angle to the line sight. Assume that
177: the energy range of the emission is not limited. Following the same
178: approach adopted in Qin (2002) and Qin et al. (2004), one can verify
179: that the flux tensity expected by a distant observer measured at
180: laboratory time $t_{ob}$ is
181: \begin{equation}
182: f_{\nu }(t_{ob})=\frac{2\pi c^{2}\int_{\widetilde{t}_{0,\min }}^{%
183: \widetilde{t}_{0,\max }}I_{0,\nu }(t_{0},\nu
184: _{0})[(t_{0}-t_{0,c})\Gamma
185: +D/c-(t_{ob}-t_{c})][R_{c}/c+(t_{0}-t_{0,c})\Gamma (v/c)]^{2}dt_{0}}{%
186: D^{2}\Gamma ^{2}\{R_{c}/c-[D/c-(t_{ob}-t_{c})](v/c)\}^{2}},
187: \end{equation}%
188: where $\widetilde{t}_{0,\min }$ and $\widetilde{t}_{0,\max }$ are
189: determined by
190: \begin{equation}
191: \widetilde{t}_{0,\min }=\max \{t_{0,\min },\frac{%
192: t_{ob}-t_{c}-D/c+(R_{c}/c)\cos \theta _{\max }}{[1-(v/c)\cos \theta
193: _{\max }]\Gamma }+t_{0,c}\}
194: \end{equation}%
195: and
196: \begin{equation}
197: \widetilde{t}_{0,\max }=\min \{t_{0,\max },\frac{%
198: t_{ob}-t_{c}-D/c+(R_{c}/c)\cos \theta _{\min }}{[1-(v/c)\cos \theta
199: _{\min }]\Gamma }+t_{0,c}\},
200: \end{equation}%
201: respectively, and $\nu _{0}$ and $t_{0}$ are related by
202: \begin{equation}
203: \nu _{0}=\frac{R_{c}/c-[D/c-(t_{ob}-t_{c})](v/c)}{R_{c}/c+(t_{0}-t_{0,c})%
204: \Gamma (v/c)}\Gamma \nu .
205: \end{equation}%
206: The observation time is confined by
207: \begin{equation}
208: \begin{array}{l}
209: \lbrack 1-(v/c)\cos \theta _{\min }][(t_{0,\min }-t_{0,c})\Gamma
210: +t_{c}]+[t_{c}(v/c)-R_{c}/c]\cos \theta _{\min }+D/c\leq t_{ob} \\
211: \leq \lbrack 1-(v/c)\cos \theta _{\max }][(t_{0,\max
212: }-t_{0,c})\Gamma
213: +t_{c}]+[t_{c}(v/c)-R_{c}/c]\cos \theta _{\max }+D/c%
214: \end{array}%
215: .
216: \end{equation}%
217: Beyond this time interval, no photons of the emission are detectable
218: by the observer.
219:
220: A power-law spectrum was commonly observed in early X-ray afterglow
221: especially in the steep decay phase (e.g., Vaughan et al. 2006;
222: Cusumano et al. 2006; O'Brien et al. 2006). In this paper we focus
223: our attention only on the case of the intrinsic emission with a
224: power-law spectrum which is expectable in the case of synchrotron
225: emission produced by shocks and was generally assumed in previous
226: investigations (e.g., Fenimore et al. 1996; Sari et al. 1998; Kumar
227: \& Panaitescu 2000). Let the intensity of the intrinsic emission be
228: $I_{0,\nu }(t_{0},\nu _{0})=I_{0}(t_{0})\nu _{0}^{-\beta }$ (Kumar
229: and Panaitescu 2000). One gets from equation (1) that
230: \begin{equation}
231: f_{\nu }(t_{ob})=\frac{2\pi c^{2}\nu ^{-\beta
232: }\int_{\widetilde{t}_{0,\min }}^{\widetilde{t}_{0,\max
233: }}I_{0}(t_{0})[R_{c}/c+(t_{0}-t_{0,c})\Gamma
234: v/c]^{2+\beta }[(t_{0}-t_{0,c})\Gamma +D/c-(t_{ob}-t_{c})]dt_{0}}{%
235: D^{2}(\Gamma v/c)^{2+\beta }(t_{ob}-t_{c}+R_{c}/v-D/c)^{2+\beta }},
236: \end{equation}%
237: where relation (4) is applied. Assigning
238: \begin{equation}
239: t\equiv t_{ob}-t_{c}+R_{c}/v-D/c,
240: \end{equation}%
241: one comes to
242: \begin{equation}
243: f_{\nu }(t)=\frac{2\pi c^{2}\nu ^{-\beta }}{D^{2}(\Gamma
244: v/c)^{2+\beta }t^{2+\beta }}\int_{\widetilde{t}_{0,\min
245: }}^{\widetilde{t}_{0,\max
246: }}I_{0}(t_{0})[R_{c}/c+(t_{0}-t_{0,c})\Gamma v/c]^{2+\beta
247: }[(t_{0}-t_{0,c})\Gamma +R_{c}/v-t]dt_{0},
248: \end{equation}%
249: with%
250: \begin{equation}
251: \widetilde{t}_{0,\min }=\max \{t_{0,\min
252: },\frac{t-R_{c}/v+(R_{c}/c)\cos \theta _{\max }}{[1-(v/c)\cos \theta
253: _{\max }]\Gamma }+t_{0,c}\},
254: \end{equation}%
255: \begin{equation}
256: \widetilde{t}_{0,\max }=\min \{t_{0,\max
257: },\frac{t-R_{c}/v+(R_{c}/c)\cos \theta _{\min }}{[1-(v/c)\cos \theta
258: _{\min }]\Gamma }+t_{0,c}\},
259: \end{equation}%
260: \begin{equation}
261: \nu _{0}=\frac{t}{R_{c}/v+(t_{0}-t_{0,c})\Gamma }\Gamma \nu ,
262: \end{equation}%
263: and
264: \begin{equation}
265: \begin{array}{l}
266: \lbrack 1-(v/c)\cos \theta _{\min }][(t_{0,\min }-t_{0,c})\Gamma
267: +t_{c}]+[t_{c}(v/c)-R_{c}/c]\cos \theta _{\min }+R_{c}/v-t_{c}\leq t \\
268: \leq \lbrack 1-(v/c)\cos \theta _{\max }][(t_{0,\max
269: }-t_{0,c})\Gamma
270: +t_{c}]+[t_{c}(v/c)-R_{c}/c]\cos \theta _{\max }+R_{c}/v-t_{c}%
271: \end{array}
272: .
273: \end{equation}
274: The meaning of $t$ defined by equation (7) can be revealed by
275: employing equation (8) in Qin et al. (2004) (where quantity $t$ is
276: now written as $t_{ob}$). According to quation (8) in Qin et al.
277: (2004), emission from $R_c = 0$ (this emission occurs at
278: $t_{\theta}=t_c$) corresponds to $t=0$; and emission from the area
279: of $\theta = 0$ from any $R_c$ (occurring at $t_{\theta}=t_c$) gives
280: rise to $t=(R_c/v)(1-\beta)\simeq(R_c/v)/2\Gamma^2$. Quantity
281: $(R_c/v)/2\Gamma^2$ is nothing but the traveling time of the
282: fireball surface from the explosion spot to $R_c$, contracted by
283: factor $1/2\Gamma^2$ since the area of $\theta=0$ moves towards the
284: observer with Lorentz factor $\Gamma$. Thus, $t=0$ is the moment
285: when photons emitted from $R_c=0$ reach the observer. Even for
286: $t_{\theta}=t_c$, one would have $t>0$ if $R_c>0$. The emission time
287: $t_{\theta}=t_c$ does not mean that photons are radiated at $R_c=0$.
288: In stead, it means that these photons are emitted from the surface
289: of the fireball with radius $R_c$ which is measured at $t_c$ (see
290: Qin 2002 Appendix A).
291:
292: Note that when the power-law range is limited, then it would
293: constrain the integral limits $\widetilde{t}_{0,\min }$ and
294: $\widetilde{t}_{0,\max }$ which are different from equations (2) and
295: (3), or (9) and (10) (see Qin 2002). In the following, we adopt the
296: Kumar \& Panaitescu (2000)'s assumption: the intrinsic emission is a
297: strict power-law within the energy range corresponding to the
298: observed energy channel. Thus, equations (2) and (3), or (9) and
299: (10) are applicable.
300:
301: According to (9) and (10), $\int_{\widetilde{t}_{0,\min }}^{\widetilde{t}%
302: _{0,\max }}I_{0}(t_{0})[R_{c}/c+(t_{0}-t_{0,c})\Gamma v/c]^{2+\beta
303: }[(t_{0}-t_{0,c})\Gamma +R_{c}/v-t]dt_{0}$ is only a function of $t$. Let%
304: \begin{equation}
305: h(t)\equiv \int_{\widetilde{t}_{0,\min }}^{\widetilde{t}_{0,\max
306: }}I_{0}(t_{0})[R_{c}/c+(t_{0}-t_{0,c})\Gamma v/c]^{2+\beta
307: }[(t_{0}-t_{0,c})\Gamma +R_{c}/v-t]dt_{0}.
308: \end{equation}%
309: Equation (8) could then be written as
310: \begin{equation}
311: f_{\nu }(t)=\frac{2\pi c^{2}}{D^{2}(\Gamma v/c)^{2+\beta }}%
312: h(t)t^{-(2+\beta )}\nu ^{-\beta }.
313: \end{equation}%
314: It shows that, in the case that the power-law intrinsic radiation
315: intensity $I_{0,\nu }(t_{0},\nu _{0})=I_{0}(t_{0})\nu _{0}^{-\beta
316: }$ holds within the energy range which corresponds to the observed
317: energy channel due to the Doppler shifting, a power-law spectrum
318: will also hold within the observed channel and the index will be
319: exactly the same as that in the intrinsic spectrum.
320:
321: Taking factor $h(t)$ as a constant, equation (14) gives rise to
322: \begin{equation}
323: f_{\nu }(t)\propto t^{-(2+\beta )}\nu ^{-\beta }.
324: \end{equation}%
325: This is the well-known flux density associated with the curvature
326: effect, which reveals the relation between the temporal and spectral
327: power-law indexes: $\alpha =2+\beta $, where $\alpha$ is the
328: temporal index (e.g., when assuming $f_{\nu }(t)\propto t^{-\alpha
329: }$) (see Fenimore et al. 1996; Kumar \& Panaitescu 2000).
330:
331: \section{Time factors other than the power-law function}
332:
333: Let us consider an intrinsic emission with a $\delta $ function of
334: time. In this situation, effects arising from the duration of real
335: intrinsic emission will be omitted and therefore those merely coming
336: from the expanding motion of the fireball surface will be clearly
337: seen.
338:
339: Not losing generality, we assume that $I_{0}(t_{0})=I_{0}\delta
340: (t_{0}-t_{0,c})$ and take $\theta _{\min }=0$ and $\theta _{\max
341: }=\pi /2$ (this corresponds to the half fireball surface facing us,
342: which will be taken throughout this paper). One then gets from (12)
343: that
344: \begin{equation}
345: R_{c}/v-R_{c}/c\leq t\leq R_{c}/v.
346: \end{equation}
347: Within the observation time confined by (16), the integral (13)
348: becomes
349: \begin{equation}
350: h(t)= I_{0}(R_{c}/c)^{2+\beta }(R_{c}/v-t).
351: \end{equation}%
352: Therefore,%
353: \begin{equation}
354: f_{\nu }(t)=\frac{2\pi c^{2}I_{0}(R_{c}/\Gamma v)^{2+\beta }}{D^{2}}%
355: (R_{c}/v-t)t^{-(2+\beta )}\nu ^{-\beta }.
356: \end{equation}%
357: When $t$ is beyond the time range confined by (16), $h(t)=0$ and
358: then $f_{\nu }(t)=0$.
359:
360: Based on Qin (2002) and Qin et al. (2004), one can check that the
361: term $[(t_{0}-t_{0,c})\Gamma +D/c-(t_{ob}-t_{c})]$ in equation (1),
362: or the term $[(t_{0}-t_{0,c})\Gamma +R_{c}/v-t]$ in equation (13),
363: comes from the projected factor of the infinitesimal fireball
364: surface area in the angle concerned (say, $\theta$) to the distant
365: observer, which is known as $cos \theta$. This term becomes
366: $R_{c}/v-t$ for a $\delta$-function temporal radiation when adopting
367: the new time definition (7). Corresponding to larger observation
368: times, the line of sight angles of the emitted areas are larger, and
369: then the term $cos \theta$ becomes smaller.
370:
371: Note that when one considers only a very small cone towards the
372: observer, this term could be ignored since it varies very mildly
373: within the angle range close to $\theta = 0$. However, what we
374: discuss here is the steep decay phase of early X-ray afterglow which
375: was generally assumed to arise from high latitude emission. In this
376: situation, the variation of this term would be significant.
377:
378: According to (11), another noticeable term,
379: $[R_{c}/c+(t_{0}-t_{0,c})\Gamma v/c]$, in equation (1) or (13)
380: reflects the shifting of frequency. Equation (11) suggests that the
381: flux observed at frequency $\nu$ and time $t$ will be contributed by
382: rest-frame photons of frequency $\nu_0$ emitted at proper time $t_0$
383: (note that the flux will also be contributed by rest-frame
384: photons of other frequency $\nu_{0}^{\prime}$ emitted at other proper time $%
385: t_{0}^{\prime}$ so long as they satisfy equation (11), and the value
386: of the
387: flux is determined by all these possible photons). Quantity $%
388: [R_{c}/c+(t_{0}-t_{0,c})\Gamma v/c]$ is a shifting factor of the
389: frequency when observation time $t$ is fixed. This term is
390: independent of observation
391: time, but due to its coupling with $(t_{0}-t_{0,c})\Gamma$ in the term of $%
392: [(t_{0}-t_{0,c})\Gamma +D/c-(t_{ob}-t_{c})]$, it might also affect
393: the light curve.
394:
395: Similarly, the term $I_{0}(t_{0})$ might also play a role due to its
396: coupling with $(t_{0}-t_{0,c})\Gamma$ in the term
397: $[(t_{0}-t_{0,c})\Gamma +D/c-(t_{ob}-t_{c})]$.
398:
399: The last factor affecting the profile of light curves is the
400: integral range of equation (13). The integral range might differ
401: from time to time since the fireball surface area that sends photons
402: to the observer, which are observed at time $t$, might
403: change with time. Shown in (9) and (10), both $\widetilde{t}_{0,\min }$ and $%
404: \widetilde{t}_{0,\max }$ are determined by observation time $t$. A
405: time dependent integral range in equation (13) probably could make
406: the decay phase of the light curve deviate from a strict power-law
407: one.
408:
409: %\clearpage
410: \begin{figure}[tbp]
411: \begin{center}
412: \includegraphics[width=5in,angle=0]{f1.eps}
413: \end{center}
414: \caption{Light curves $I_{\nu,\delta}[1-t/(R_{c}/v)]t^{-(2+\beta )}$
415: (lower lines) and $I_{\nu,\delta}t^{-(2+\beta )}$ (upper lines)
416: associated with $R_{c}\simeq 10^{15}cm$ (solid lines) and
417: $R_{c}\simeq 10^{13}cm$ (dashed lines). Note that the lower and
418: upper lines are overlapped in the main domain of the corresponding
419: light curves.} \label{Fig. 1}
420: \end{figure}
421: %\clearpage
422:
423: In the following, we show how these time factors affect the decay
424: phase of light curves which arise from the intrinsic emission with a
425: power-law spectrum.
426:
427: \subsection{In the case of the temporal profile of the intrinsic emission being a $\delta$-function of time}
428:
429: We first consider the case of the temporal profile of the intrinsic
430: emission being a $\delta$-function of time. The light curve arising
431: from this emission is $I_{\nu,\delta}[1-t/(R_{c}/v)]t^{-(2+\beta )}$
432: according to (18). We take $I_{\nu,\delta}=1$ and $\beta=1$ to plot
433: the curves. We consider the fireball radius with
434: $R_{c}/v=(1/3)10^{5}s$ and $ R_{c}/v=(1/3)10^{3}s $ which correspond
435: to two typical radius $R_{c}\simeq 10^{15}cm$ and $R_{c}\simeq
436: 10^{13}cm$ respectively (see Ryde \& Petrosian 2002).
437:
438: Shown in Fig. 1 are the light curves of
439: $I_{\nu,\delta}[1-t/(R_{c}/v)]t^{-(2+\beta )}$ and
440: $I_{\nu,\delta}t^{-(2+\beta )}$ associated with $R_{c}\simeq
441: 10^{15}cm$ and $R_{c}\simeq 10^{13}cm$. We find that, in the case of
442: very short intrinsic emission, although the $R_{c}/v-t$ term in
443: equation (18) plays a role in the decay phase, the temporal curve
444: well follow a power-law in the main domain of the phase. Following
445: the power-law curve is a tail falling off speedily due to the effect
446: of the $R_{c}/v-t$ term. A remarkable feature revealed by the figure
447: is that the power-law decay time is solely determined by and very
448: sensitive to the radius of the fireball and the power-law range
449: itself can tell how large is a fireball radius. For example, a
450: power-law range being found to extend to $100s$ must be larger than
451: $10^{13}cm$ and that being found to extend to $10000s$ must be
452: larger than $10^{15}cm$. The conclusion is surprisingly to be
453: independent of the Lorentz factor. Note that this conclusion holds
454: when the intrinsic emission is extremely short so that its temporal
455: profile can be treated as a $\delta$-function. As illustrated in
456: Fig. 1, a strict $t^{-(2+\beta )}$ curve followed by a speedily
457: falling off tail is a feature of extremely short intrinsic emission.
458: When this feature is observed, one can estimate the fireball radius
459: merely from the time scale of the power-law decay phase so long as
460: the spectrum is a power-law and the relation of $\alpha =2+\beta $
461: holds.
462:
463: \subsection{In the case of the temporal profile of the intrinsic emission being an exponential
464: function of time}
465:
466: Second, let us consider the intrinsic emission with its temporal
467: profile being an exponential of time and check if the resulting
468: light curve is different from that arising from the
469: $\delta$-function emission. We ignore the contribution from the rise
470: phase of the emission of shocks (it corresponds to the situation
471: when the rise time is extremely short). The intrinsic decaying light
472: curve with an exponential form is assumed to be:
473: $I_{0}(t_{0})=I_{0}exp[-(t_{0}-t_{0,c})/ \sigma _{d}]$ for
474: $t_{0}>t_{0,c}$. Equation (14) now becomes
475: \begin{equation}
476: f_{\nu }(t)=I_{e}h_{e}(t)t^{-(2+\beta )}\nu ^{-\beta },
477: \end{equation}%
478: with
479: \begin{equation}
480: h_{e}(t)=\int_{\widetilde{t}_{0,\min }}^{\widetilde{t}_{0,\max }}\frac{%
481: [1+(t_{0}-t_{0,c})\Gamma v/R_{c}]^{2+\beta }[(t_{0}-t_{0,c})\Gamma
482: v/R_{c}+1-tv/R_{c}]dt_{0}}{exp[(t_{0}-t_{0,c})/\sigma _{d}]}\qquad
483: \qquad (t_{0}>t_{0,c}),
484: \end{equation}%
485: \begin{equation}
486: \widetilde{t}_{0,\min }=\max \{t_{0,c},\frac{t-R_{c}/v}{\Gamma }%
487: +t_{0,c}\}
488: \end{equation}%
489: and%
490: \begin{equation}
491: \widetilde{t}_{0,\max }=\frac{t-R_{c}/v+R_{c}/c}{(1-v/c)\Gamma }%
492: +t_{0,c},
493: \end{equation}%
494: where $I_{e}$ is a constant and observation time $t$ is confined by
495: \begin{equation}
496: R_{c}/v-R_{c}/c\leq t.
497: \end{equation}
498:
499: Not losing generality, we take $t_{0,c}=0$. Equations (20)-(22) then
500: become
501: \begin{equation}
502: h_{e}(t)=\int_{\widetilde{t}_{0,\min }}^{\widetilde{t}_{0,\max }}\frac{%
503: (1+t_{0}\Gamma v/R_{c})^{2+\beta }(t_{0}\Gamma v/R_{c}+1-tv/R_{c})dt_{0}}{%
504: exp(t_{0}/\sigma _{d})}\qquad \qquad (t_{0}>0),
505: \end{equation}%
506: \begin{equation}
507: \widetilde{t}_{0,\min }=\max \{0,\frac{t-R_{c}/v}{\Gamma }\}
508: \end{equation}%
509: and%
510: \begin{equation}
511: \widetilde{t}_{0,\max }=\frac{t-R_{c}/v+R_{c}/c}{(1-v/c)\Gamma }.
512: \end{equation}
513:
514: Here, we take $I_{e}=1$, $\beta =1$, and adopt
515: $R_{c}/v=(1/3)10^{5}s$ to plot the light curves. For the Lorentz
516: factor, we take $\Gamma =10$ and $\Gamma =100$, respectively.
517:
518: %\clearpage
519: \begin{figure}[tbp]
520: \begin{center}
521: \includegraphics[width=5in,angle=0]{f2.eps}
522: \end{center}
523: \caption{Light curves (solid lines for $\Gamma=100$; dashed lines
524: for $\Gamma=10$) arising from the intrinsic emission with its
525: temporal profile being an exponential function of time (see equation
526: (19)), plotted in cases of $\sigma_{d}=0.1s$, $1s$, $10s$ and $100s$
527: respectively, where $h_{e}(t)$ is determined by (24). For the sake
528: of comparison, those lines in Fig. 1 are also plotted (the grey
529: color lines).} \label{Fig. 2}
530: \end{figure}
531: %\clearpage
532:
533: Shown in Fig. 2 are the light curves plotted with different values
534: of the width of the exponential function ($\sigma_{d}=0.1s$, $1s$,
535: $10s$ and $100s$). The light curves are quite similar to those
536: arising from the intrinsic emission with its temporal profile being
537: a $\delta$-function of time (see Fig. 1, where a feature of a
538: $t^{-(2+\beta )}$ curve followed by a speedily falling off tail is
539: observed). Due to the contribution of the exponential decay curve of
540: the intrinsic emission, the range of light curves is sightly larger
541: than that in the case of the intrinsic emission with a
542: $\delta$-function of time (this can be observed when the width is
543: large enough; see the lower right panel of Fig. 2). This is
544: understandable since after the width the emission of an exponential
545: function dies away rapidly and therefore its contribution can be
546: ignored.
547:
548: In the case when both the width of the exponential function emission
549: and the Lorentz factor of the fireball are large, the resulting
550: light curve would obviously deviate from that arising from the
551: $\delta$-function emission in the domain of the falling off tail,
552: where the slope of the tail of the former light curve becomes
553: obviously mild (see the lower right panel of Fig. 2). Besides this,
554: no other characteristics can distinguish the tow kinds of light
555: curve.
556:
557: \subsection{In the case of the temporal profile of the intrinsic emission being a power-law function of
558: time}
559:
560: Third, we check if an observed light curve arising from the emission
561: with a power-law spectrum has something to do with the intrinsic
562: decaying behavior when the decay curve is a power-law of time. Here,
563: we also ignore the contribution from the rise phase of the emission
564: of shocks, and then consider only an intrinsic power-law decay
565: emission (this will occur when the cooling is a power law).
566:
567: \subsubsection{When the power-law decay time is infinity}
568:
569: Assuming that the power-law decay time is infinity, the intrinsic
570: decaying light curve is taken as
571: $I_{0}(t_{0})=[(t_{0}-t_{0,c})/(t_{0,0}-t_{0,c})]^{-\alpha _{0}}$
572: for $t_{0}>t_{0,0}$, where $t_{0,0}>t_{0,c}$ is a constant which is
573: the time when the power-law decay emission begins. In this case,
574: equation (14) becomes
575: \begin{equation}
576: f_{\nu }(t)=I_{p}h_{p}(t)t^{-(2+\beta )}\nu ^{-\beta },
577: \end{equation}%
578: with
579: \begin{equation}
580: h_{p}(t)=\int_{\widetilde{t}_{0,\min }}^{\widetilde{t}_{0,\max }}\frac{%
581: [1+(t_{0}-t_{0,c})\Gamma v/R_{c}]^{2+\beta }[(t_{0}-t_{0,c})\Gamma
582: v/R_{c}+1-tv/R_{c}]}{[(t_{0}-t_{0,c})/(t_{0,0}-t_{0,c})]^{\alpha _{0}}}%
583: dt_{0}\qquad (t_{0}>t_{0,0}),
584: \end{equation}%
585: \begin{equation}
586: \widetilde{t}_{0,\min }=\max \{t_{0,0},\frac{t-R_{c}/v}{\Gamma
587: }+t_{0,c}\}
588: \end{equation}%
589: and%
590: \begin{equation}
591: \widetilde{t}_{0,\max }=\frac{t-R_{c}/v+R_{c}/c}{(1-v/c)\Gamma
592: }+t_{0,c},
593: \end{equation}
594: where $I_{p}$ is a constant and observation time $t$ is confined by
595: \begin{equation}
596: (t_{0,0}-t_{0,c})(1-v/c)\Gamma -R_{c}/c+R_{c}/v\leq t.
597: \end{equation}%
598: Not losing generality, we take $t_{0,c}=0$. Equations (28)-(31) then
599: become
600: \begin{equation}
601: h_{p}(t)=\int_{\widetilde{t}_{0,\min }}^{\widetilde{t}_{0,\max
602: }}(1+t_{0}\Gamma v/R_{c})^{2+\beta }(1+t_{0}\Gamma
603: v/R_{c}-tv/R_{c})(t_{0}/t_{0,0})^{-\alpha _{0}}dt_{0}\qquad \qquad
604: (t_{0}>t_{0,0}),
605: \end{equation}%
606: \begin{equation}
607: \widetilde{t}_{0,\min }=\max \{t_{0,0},\frac{t-R_{c}/v}{\Gamma }\},
608: \end{equation}%
609: \begin{equation}
610: \widetilde{t}_{0,\max }=\frac{t-R_{c}/v+R_{c}/c}{(1-v/c)\Gamma }
611: \end{equation}%
612: and%
613: \begin{equation}
614: (1-v/c)\Gamma t_{0,0}-R_{c}/c+R_{c}/v\leq t.
615: \end{equation}
616:
617: Here, we take $I_{p}\nu^{-\beta}=1$ and $\beta =1$ to plot the light
618: curves. For the Lorentz factor, we take $\Gamma=10$ and
619: $\Gamma=100$. We consider two typical values of the fireball radius
620: $ R_{c} = 10^{15}cm$ and $R_{c} = 10^{13}cm$. For the intrinsic
621: temporal power-law index, we take $\alpha _{0}=2$, $2.5$, $3$, $4$
622: and $5$ respectively, and for the time when the power-law decay
623: emission begins we take $t_{0,0}=0.01s$, $0.1s$ and $1s$
624: respectively.
625:
626: \begin{figure}
627: \centering
628: \subfigure[]{
629: \label{fig:subfig:a} %% label for first subfigure
630: \includegraphics[width=2.2in]{f3a.eps}}
631: % \hspace{1in}
632: \subfigure[]{
633: \label{fig:subfig:b} %% label for second subfigure
634: \includegraphics[width=2.2in]{f3b.eps}}
635: \subfigure[]{
636: \label{fig:subfig:c} %% label for second subfigure
637: \includegraphics[width=2.2in]{f3c.eps}}
638: \caption{Light curves arising from the intrinsic emission with its
639: temporal profile being a power-law function of time and the
640: power-law decay time being infinity (see equation (27)), plotted in
641: cases of $t_{0,0}=0.01s$ (sub-figure a), $0.1s$ (sub-figure b) and
642: $1s$ (sub-figure c) respectively, where $h_{p}(t)$ is determined by
643: (32). The upper and lower panels of each sub-figure correspond to
644: $\Gamma = 10$ and $\Gamma = 100$ respectively and the left and right
645: panels of each sub-figure correspond to $R_{c} = 10^{13}cm$ and
646: $R_{c} = 10^{15}cm$ respectively. Five kinds of black line stand for
647: five different intrinsic temporal power-law indexes. They are
648: (counting the five black lines for each panel from the top to the
649: bottom): the dash dot line for $\alpha _{0}=2$ ($\alpha
650: _{0}=1+\beta$), the dash dot dot line for $\alpha _{0}=2.5$ ($\alpha
651: _{0}=1.5+\beta$), the solid line for $\alpha _{0}=3$ ($\alpha
652: _{0}=2+\beta$), the dash line for $\alpha _{0}=4$ ($\alpha
653: _{0}=3+\beta$) and the dot line for $\alpha _{0}=5$ ($\alpha
654: _{0}=4+\beta$). For the sake of comparison, those lines in Fig. 1
655: are also plotted (the grey color lines).}
656: \end{figure}
657: %\clearpage
658:
659: The corresponding light curves are displayed in Fig. 3. Due to the
660: contribution of $h_{p}(t)$, some new features are observed. There
661: exist two kinds of light curve: a) a $t^{-(2+\beta)}$ curve followed
662: by a shallow decay curve with its index being obviously smaller than
663: $2+\beta$ (type I); b) a $t^{-(2+\beta)}$ curve followed by a very
664: steep decay phase (shown as a ``cutoff'' curve) and then a shallow
665: decay curve with its index being smaller than $2+\beta$ (type II).
666: The curve of type II tends to appear in cases when the intrinsic
667: temporal power-law index is large, the Lorentz factor is small and
668: the onset of the intrinsic temporal power-law is early (comparing
669: left panels of sub-figures a, b and c; or comparing right panels of
670: the sub-figures). The very steep decay curve appears very close to
671: the time position marked by that in the light curve arising from the
672: $\delta$ function emission (see the gray color lines in the figure)
673: (in fact, relative to the latter, the former shifts to slightly
674: larger time scales). This means that the time position of the very
675: steep decay phase of the light curve of type II is mainly determined
676: by the radius of the fireball, which can serve as an indicator of
677: the latter (see also the discussion in the two previous
678: subsections). For the light curve of type I, the start of the
679: shallow decay phase can appear from very early time scale to around
680: 300s for the fireball with radius $R_{c} = 10^{13}cm$, depending on
681: the intrinsic temporal power-law index $\alpha_0$, the Lorentz
682: factor $\Gamma$ and the onset time $t_{0,0}$ of the intrinsic
683: temporal power-law (see the left panels of the sub-figures a, b and
684: c). The smaller values of $\alpha_0$, $\Gamma$ and $t_{0,0}$, the
685: larger time scale of the start of the shallow decay phase. For the
686: fireball with radius $R_{c} = 10^{15}cm$, conclusions drawn from
687: type I light curves remain the same, except that the maximum of the
688: start time of the shallow decay phase can appear at around 3000s. In
689: both types I and II, the slope of the shallow decay curve increases
690: with the increasing of $\alpha_0$.
691:
692: Revealed in the left lower panel of Fig. 3c, as a special case of
693: type I, some light curves appear to be a single power-law one with
694: their indexes significantly smaller than $2+\beta$. They are in fact
695: the shallow decay phase of the corresponding light curves. The onset
696: of the phase shifts to much smaller time scales due to the larger
697: values of the Lorentz factor $\Gamma$ and the onset time $t_{0,0}$
698: of the intrinsic temporal power-law for a given value of the
699: fireball radius.
700:
701: \subsubsection{When the power-law decay time is limited}
702:
703: One might notice that there is no upper limit of the intrinsic
704: power-law decay emission considered above. Let us put an upper limit
705: to the intrinsic emission and then check if it could give rise to
706: other noticeable features on the observed light curves. The
707: intrinsic decaying light curve is assumed
708: to be $I_{0}(t_{0})=[(t_{0}-t_{0,c})/(t_{0,0}-t_{0,c})]^{-\alpha _{0}}$ for $%
709: t_{0,0}<t_{0}<t_{0,\max }$. Also, we take $t_{0,c}=0$. In this
710: situation, equations (27), (32) and (33) hold, while equations (34)
711: and (35) are
712: replaced by%
713: \begin{equation}
714: \widetilde{t}_{0,\max }=\min \{t_{0,\max },\frac{t-R_{c}/v+R_{c}/c}{%
715: (1-v/c)\Gamma }\},
716: \end{equation}
717: \begin{equation}
718: (1-v/c)\Gamma t_{0,0}-R_{c}/c+R_{c}/v\leq t\leq t_{0,\max }\Gamma
719: +R_{c}/v.
720: \end{equation}
721:
722: Parameters adopted in producing Fig. 3 are also adopted here to
723: create the light curves. Among those studied in Fig. 3, we consider
724: only the following four cases: $\Gamma =10$ and $t_{0,0}=0.01s$ (see
725: the upper panels of Fig. 3a); $\Gamma =10$ and $t_{0,0}=0.1s$ (see
726: the upper panels of Fig. 3b); $\Gamma =100$ and $t_{0,0}=0.1s$ (see
727: the lower panels of Fig. 3b); $\Gamma =100$ and $t_{0,0}=1s$ (see
728: the lower panels of Fig. 3c). For the new parameter, we take
729: $t_{0,\max }= t_{0,0}+0.01R_{c}/c$, $t_{0,\max }= t_{0,0}+R_{c}/c$
730: and $t_{0,\max }= t_{0,0}+100R_{c}/c$ respectively. The
731: corresponding light curves are displayed in Figs. 4-7 which
732: correspond to the four cases respectively.
733:
734: %\clearpage
735: \begin{figure}[tbp]
736: \begin{center}
737: \includegraphics[width=5in,angle=0]{f4.eps}
738: \end{center}
739: \caption{Light curves arising from the intrinsic emission with its
740: temporal profile being a power-law function of time and with a
741: limited duration, plotted in the case of $\Gamma =10$ and
742: $t_{0,0}=0.01s$. Here, we consider two values of the fireball radius
743: and three time scales of the duration of the power-law emission (see
744: the description in each panel). The equations are the same as that
745: adopted in Fig. 3, except that we use equations (36) and (37) to
746: replace equations (34) and (35), respectively. The symbols are the
747: same as that in Fig. 3.} \label{Fig. 1}
748: \end{figure}
749: %\clearpage
750:
751: %\clearpage
752: \begin{figure}[tbp]
753: \begin{center}
754: \includegraphics[width=5in,angle=0]{f5.eps}
755: \end{center}
756: \caption{Light curves of Fig. 4 replaced by those produced in the
757: case of $\Gamma =10$ and $t_{0,0}=0.1s$.} \label{Fig. 1}
758: \end{figure}
759: %\clearpage
760:
761: %\clearpage
762: \begin{figure}[tbp]
763: \begin{center}
764: \includegraphics[width=5in,angle=0]{f6.eps}
765: \end{center}
766: \caption{Light curves of Fig. 4 replaced by those produced in the
767: case of $\Gamma =100$ and $t_{0,0}=0.1s$.} \label{Fig. 1}
768: \end{figure}
769: %\clearpage
770:
771: %\clearpage
772: \begin{figure}[tbp]
773: \begin{center}
774: \includegraphics[width=5in,angle=0]{f7.eps}
775: \end{center}
776: \caption{Light curves of Fig. 4 replaced by those produced in the
777: case of $\Gamma =100$ and $t_{0,0}=1s$.} \label{Fig. 1}
778: \end{figure}
779: %\clearpage
780:
781: Upper panels of these figures show that when the power-law emission
782: is as short as $0.01$ times of the typical time scale of the
783: fireball radius (say, when $\Delta t_{0,0} = 0.01 R_{c}/c$) and the
784: Lorentz factor is not so large (say, not larger than 100), the light
785: curves are similar to those arising from the $\delta$ function
786: emission. This suggests that, in the framework of the curvature
787: effect, light curve characteristics of emissions with time scales as
788: short as $0.01$ times of $R_{c}/c$ and the Lorentz factor not larger
789: than 100 are hard to be distinguished from that of a $\delta$
790: function emission. (This is in agreement with what is shown in Fig.
791: 2.)
792:
793: Lower panels of these figures arise from longer duration of the
794: power-law emission ($\Delta t_{0,0} = 100R_{c}/c$). Some new
795: features appear. A remarkable one is the light curve with a
796: power-law decay curve followed by a shallow phase and then a steeper
797: power-law phase (type III). Connecting the two latter phases of this
798: kind of light curve is a remarkable time break (check the upper
799: three black lines of each lower panel of the figures). This tends to
800: happen when the intrinsic temporal power-law index is relatively
801: small. Otherwise, this kind of curve disappear (check the two lower
802: black lines in each lower panel of the figures).
803:
804: When the duration of the power-law emission is not so large and not
805: so small (say, $\Delta t_{0,0} = R_{c}/c$), other forms of light
806: curves are observed (see the mid panels of these figures). In this
807: situation, when the Lorentz factor is large enough (say, $\Gamma
808: =100$), light curves of type III with shorter shallow phases appear
809: (see the mid panels of Figs. 6 and 7). This is expectable since in
810: the framework of the curvature effect the profile of a light curve
811: depends only on the ratio between the observational time scale and
812: the corresponding fireball radius time scale $R_{c}/c$ (see Qin et
813: al. 2004), and due to the contraction time effect (note that, the
814: face-on part of the fireball surface moves towards us when the
815: fireball expands) a certain observational time scale corresponds to
816: a longer co-moving time scale for a larger Lorentz factor.
817:
818: \section{Example of application}
819:
820: In our analysis above, we consider only a simple power-law emission,
821: for which the power-law index $\beta$ is assumed to be constant.
822: Expected from the model, the observed spectrum would be a constant
823: power-law with the same index and the rapid decay light curve would
824: be the well-known $t^{-(2+\beta)}$ curve. This constrains our
825: application, since the spectra of many X-ray afterglows of GRBs are
826: found to vary with time and the corresponding light curves are found
827: not to follow the $t^{-(2+\beta)}$ curve (see Zhang et al. 2007 and
828: the UNLV GRB Group web-site http://grb.physics.unlv.edu). Instead of
829: a power-law, many light curves are bent. To apply our model, one
830: must find a burst with its spectral index being constant and its
831: light curve following (or approximately following) the
832: $t^{-(2+\beta)}$ curve in its X-ray afterglow.
833:
834: After checking the data provided in web-site
835: http://grb.physics.unlv.edu (up to March 25, 2008), we find that GRB
836: 050219A might be one that fits our simple model. The data show, the
837: spectral index does not vary with time and its mean is $\beta =
838: 0.907 \pm 0.051$. In addition, the first decay curve of the bust is
839: a power-law curve with its index being approximately $2+\beta$. This
840: phase is followed by a shallow one which starts at about $500s$.
841: Comparing this light curve with those presented in Fig. 3, we guess,
842: if it is due to the curvature effect, the fireball radius must be
843: larger than $R_{c} = 10^{13}cm$, otherwise the start time of the
844: shallow phase would be too small to meet the data (see the left
845: panels of Figs. 3a, 3b and 3c). If the radius is $R_{c} =
846: 10^{15}cm$, then the Lorentz factor must be larger than $10$,
847: otherwise the start time of the shallow phase would be too large
848: (see the right upper panels of Figs. 3a, 3b and 3c). Revealed in
849: Fig. 3, there are four factors affecting the start time of the
850: shallow phase: the fireball radius $R_{c}$; the Lorentz factor
851: $\Gamma$; the intrinsic temporal power-law emission index
852: $\alpha_0$; and the start time of the intrinsic temporal power-law
853: emission $t_{0,0}$.
854:
855: Available in the mentioned web-site, there are 75 data points in the
856: XRT light curve of GRB 050219A. As an example of fitting, we ignore
857: the three data points with the largest time scales since the gap
858: between them and the majority of the data set is too large and the
859: domain showing a constant spectral index does not cover them (see
860: http://grb.physics.unlv.edu) (in this way, one cannot tell if the
861: spectral index in the corresponding time scale is still constant).
862: With the rest 72 data points, we need only apply the equations
863: adopted in the discussion of the case of the temporal profile of the
864: intrinsic emission being a power-law function of time and the
865: power-law decay time being infinity. The equations adopted in
866: producing Fig. 3 are employed to fit the data set, where the term
867: $I_{p}\nu^{-\beta}$, which dominates the magnitude of the
868: theoretical curve, would be determined by fit.
869:
870: Since both the fireball radius and the Lorentz factor are sensitive
871: to the time scale of the start time of the shallow phase, we deal
872: with them one by one. We first fix the Lorentz factor and assume it
873: to be $\Gamma= 100$, allowing $R_{c}$ and $\alpha_0$ to vary since
874: not only the start time of the shallow phase should be met but also
875: the power-law index of the shallow phase should be accounted for. In
876: addition, we take $t_{0,0}=1s$ since $t_{0,0}$ is less sensitive to
877: the start time of the shallow phase (see the right panels of Figs.
878: 3a, 3b and 3c). The best fitting curve is shown in Fig. 8. One finds
879: that the XRT data of GRB 050219A can be roughly accounted for by a
880: power-law temporal emission from an expanding fireball surface. Note
881: that the corresponding fitting parameters are not important since
882: other possibilities exist (see the discussion below).
883:
884: Next, we fix the fireball radius and take it as $R_{c} = 10^{15}cm$
885: (in fact, we take $R_{c}/v=(1/3)10^{5}s$ which corresponds to
886: $R_{c}\simeq 10^{15}cm$), allowing $\Gamma$ and $\alpha_0$ to vary.
887: Also, we take $t_{0,0}=1s$. The best fit is displayed in Fig. 9. It
888: shows that the result of the fit with a fixed fireball radius is
889: hard to be distinguished from that with a fixed Lorentz factor.
890: Therefore, the resulting fitting parameters are not important in
891: this stage of investigation.
892:
893: There is a third choice: one could fix $\alpha_0$ and allow $R_{c}$
894: and $\Gamma$ to vary. We guess, it might yields a similar result.
895:
896: %\clearpage
897: \begin{figure}[tbp]
898: \begin{center}
899: \includegraphics[width=5in,angle=0]{f8.eps}
900: \end{center}
901: \caption{XRT light curve of GRB 050219A. Equations (27) and
902: (32)-(35), which describe light curves arising from the intrinsic
903: emission with its temporal profile being a power-law function of
904: time and the power-law decay time being infinity, are employed to
905: fit the data, where we take $\Gamma= 100$. The solid line is the
906: best fit to the data. The corresponding fitting parameters are:
907: $R_{c}=1.05\times 10^{16} cm$, $\alpha_0=2.05$, and
908: $I_{p}\nu^{-\beta}=9.56\times 10^{-4}$ (see equation (27)). The
909: $\chi^2$ of the fit is $\chi^2_{dof}=1.39$.} \label{Fig. 1}
910: \end{figure}
911: %\clearpage
912:
913: %\clearpage
914: \begin{figure}[tbp]
915: \begin{center}
916: \includegraphics[width=5in,angle=0]{f9.eps}
917: \end{center}
918: \caption{Another fit to the XRT light curve of GRB 050219A, where we
919: take $R_{c}/v=(1/3)10^{5}s$. The equations adopted for the fit are
920: the same as those used in Fig. 8. The black solid line represents
921: the best fit and the grey solid line is the solid line in Fig. 8.
922: The corresponding fitting parameters are: $\Gamma=23.1$,
923: $\alpha_0=1.98$, and $I_{p}\nu^{-\beta}=8.88\times 10^{-4}$ (see
924: equation (27)). The $\chi^2$ of the fit is $\chi^2_{dof}=1.48$.}
925: \label{Fig. 1}
926: \end{figure}
927: %\clearpage
928:
929:
930: \section{Discussion and conclusions}
931:
932: We investigate in this paper how an intrinsic emission with a
933: power-law spectrum $I_{0,\nu }(t_{0},\nu _{0})=I_{0}(t_{0})\nu
934: _{0}^{-\beta }$ emitting from an expanding fireball surface gives
935: rise to an observed flux density when the full curvature effect is
936: considered. We find that, if the power-law spectrum of the intrinsic
937: radiation holds within the energy range that corresponds to the
938: observed energy channel due to the Doppler shifting, the resulting
939: spectrum would be a power-law as well and the index will be exactly
940: the same as that in the intrinsic spectrum, regardless the real form
941: of the temporal profile of the intrinsic emission. Accompanied with
942: the power law spectrum of index $\beta$ is a power law light curve
943: with index $2+\beta $, expected by the curvature effect, which was
944: known previously (see Fenimore et al. 1996; Kumar \& Panaitescu
945: 2000). This light curve could be observed if the intrinsic emission
946: is extremely short or if the emission arises from an exponential
947: cooling.
948:
949: In particular, we assume and consider a power-law cooling emission
950: in the co-moving frame (for this emission, the intrinsic temporal
951: profile is a power-law). We find that, if the power-law decay time
952: being infinity, due to the contribution of the power-law cooling in
953: the co-moving frame, the observed light curve influenced by the full
954: curvature effect contains two phases: one is a rapid decay phase
955: where the light curve well follows the well-known $t^{-(2+\beta)}$
956: curve, and the other is a shallow decay phase where the light curve
957: is obviously shallower than that in the rapid decay phase. If the
958: power-law decay time is limited, there would be several kinds of
959: light curve. A remarkable one among them contains three power-law
960: phases (see Figs. 4-7): the first is a rapid one with its index
961: being equal to or larger than that of the $t^{-(2+\beta)}$ curve;
962: the second is a shallow decay one with its index being obviously
963: smaller than that in the first phase; and the third is a rapid decay
964: one with its index being equal to or less than that of the first
965: phase. It might be possible that, some of the GRBs containing such
966: features in their afterglow light curves are due to expanding
967: fireballs or face-on uniform jets (see e.g. Qin et al. 2004)
968: emitting with a power-law spectrum and a power-law cooling (being
969: infinity or limited). In the view of co-moving observers, the
970: dynamic process of the merger of shells would be somewhat similar to
971: that occurred in the external shocks (the main difference is that in
972: the case of inner shocks, a co-moving observer observes only a
973: limited volume of medium for which the density would evolve with
974: time due to the enhancement of the fireball surface). Based on this
975: argument, we suspect that the intrinsic emission of some of those
976: bursts possessing in their early X-ray afterglows a rapid decay
977: phase soon followed by a shallow decay phase and then a rapid decay
978: one might be somewhat similar to the well-known standard forward
979: shock model (Sari et al. 1998; Granot et al. 1999); while for some
980: of the bursts with a rapid phase followed by a shallow phase in
981: their late X-ray afterglows the emission might be that of the
982: standard forward shock model influenced by the curvature effect.
983: Necessary conditions for perceiving this mechanism include: a)
984: during the period concerned, the spectral index should be constant;
985: b) the temporal index in the first phase should be equal to or
986: larger than that of the $t^{-(2+\beta)}$ curve.
987:
988: As an example of application, we employ the XRT data of GRB 050219A
989: to perform a fit since the spectral index $\beta$ of this burst does
990: not vary with time and the first decay phase of its light curve is a
991: power-law one with its index being approximately $2+\beta$. The
992: result shows that the XRT data of this burst can be roughly
993: accounted for by a power-law temporal emission from an expanding
994: fireball surface. Since there exist various possibilities,
995: parameters obtained by the fit are not unique. To determine the
996: parameters, we need other independent estimations. According to the
997: analysis above, a reliable value of the fireball radius would be
998: obtained if one observes a ``cut-off'' feature following the
999: $t^{-(2+\beta)}$ curve in the case of a constant spectral index
1000: $\beta$. Nevertheless, the start time of the shallow phase could
1001: raise a limit to the fireball radius (see Figs. 3-7). For GRB
1002: 050219A, if its XRT data are indeed due to the curvature effect, its
1003: radius corresponding to this emission must be larger than $R_{c} =
1004: 10^{13}cm$. We have checked that taking $R_{c}/v=(1/3)10^{4}s$
1005: (which corresponds to $R_{c}\simeq 10^{14}cm$), $\Gamma=8$ and
1006: $\alpha_0 = 2.157$ can also roughly account for the data. As the
1007: Lorentz factor is so small in this situation, we conclude that, if
1008: the X-ray afterglow of GRB 050219A does arise from the emission of
1009: an expanding fireball surface, the radius of the fireball associated
1010: with this emission would not be much less than $R_{c}= 10^{14}cm$,
1011: otherwise $\Gamma$ would be too small to be regarded as a
1012: relativistic motion.
1013:
1014: Why a shallow phase emerges due to the curvature effect? We guess,
1015: while the first phase is dominated by the geometric effect and
1016: therefore obeys the $t^{-(2+\beta)}$ curve, in the shallow phase the
1017: intrinsic emission overcomes the geometric effect and dominates the
1018: light curve observed. One might notice the $\alpha _{0}=2$ lines
1019: (the dash dot lines) in Fig. 3 --- the shallow phase curve of these
1020: lines is parallel to the time axis. As the radius grows linearly
1021: with time when a constant Lorentz factor is assumed (see Qin 2002),
1022: the emission from the fireball surface of a certain solid angle
1023: increases as a square of time (the area of the surface is
1024: proportional to $R^2$). This in turn makes the total emission of
1025: $I_{0} \propto t_{0}^{-2}$ from the surface becoming constant. When
1026: the intrinsic emission overcomes the geometric effect in the shallow
1027: phase, one cannot expect a light curve of $t^{-\alpha_0}$, but
1028: instead, we expect that of $t^{-(\alpha_{0}-2)}$ (see Fig. 3).
1029:
1030: It is known that a $\delta $-function intensity approximates the
1031: process of an extremely short emission. This will occur when the
1032: corresponding fireball shells are very thin and the cooling time is
1033: relatively short compared with the curvature time scale (for the
1034: time scale of the curvature effect, see Kocevski et al. 2003 and Qin
1035: \& Lu 2005). Two light curve characteristics are associated with a
1036: quasi-$\delta$-function emission. The first is a strict power-law
1037: decay curve with index $2+\beta$. The second is the limited time
1038: range of this curve. If the cooling time is not so short but it is
1039: an exponential one, then these characteristics are also expected
1040: (see Fig. 2). Note that the exponential cooling time does not last
1041: the $t^{-(2+\beta)}$ curve to a much larger time scale when the
1042: cooling itself is not very large (say, in the case of $R_{c} =
1043: 10^{15}cm$, $\sigma _{d}<100s$; see Fig. 2). Thus, one can estimate
1044: the fireball radius from bursts possessing these characteristics
1045: (note that, the time scale of the $t^{-(2+\beta)}$ curve is
1046: independent of the Lorentz factor; see equations (16) and (18)). For
1047: candidates of this kind of burst, we propose to fit the spectrum
1048: with $\nu ^{-\beta }$ and the light curve with
1049: $[T_{D}-(t-T_{0})](t-T_{0})^{-(2+\beta )}$, where both $T_{D}$ and
1050: $T_{0}$ are free parameters. When the fitting is good enough, we say
1051: that the intrinsic fireball emission is likely very short or the
1052: cooling is an exponential one and the corresponding fireball radius
1053: is $R_{c}\simeq vT_{D}$. When the expansion of the fireball is
1054: relativistic, we get $R_{c}\simeq cT_{D}$. Therefore, via this
1055: method, one obtains at least the upper limit of the fireball radius
1056: as long as the intrinsic emission is extremely short, or the cooling
1057: is an exponential one, and the intrinsic spectrum is a power-law.
1058:
1059: In the case of the intrinsic temporal power-law emission, when its
1060: temporal index is large enough ($\alpha _{0}>2+\beta$), there would
1061: be a ``cutoff'' curve located exactly at the same time position of
1062: the speedily falling off tail in the light curve of a
1063: $\delta$-function emission. This feature could be used to estimate
1064: the fireball radius as well. Presented in Zhang et al. (2007),
1065: several bursts seem to possess this ``cutoff'' feature: GRB050724,
1066: GRB060211A, GRB060218, GRB060427, GRB060614, GRB060729 and
1067: GRB060814. If the proposed interpretation can be applied, their
1068: radius would be that ranging from $10^{13}cm$ to $10^{15}cm$. At
1069: lease one reason prevents us to reach such a conclusion. The spectra
1070: of these bursts happen to vary quite significantly within the light
1071: curves associated with this feature. This conflicts with what we
1072: assume in this paper (we assume a constant intrinsic spectrum). We
1073: thus appeal further investigation of this issue taking into account
1074: the variation of the intrinsic spectrum, which might tell us whether
1075: the ``cutoff'' feature remains and/or its properties are maintained.
1076:
1077: Displayed in literature, many Swift bursts are found to possess a
1078: bent light curve instead of a strict power-law one, in the early
1079: X-ray afterglow (see, e.g., Chincarini et al. 2005; Liang et al.
1080: 2006; Nousek et al. 2006; O'Brien et al. 2006). In our analysis
1081: above, we seldom get bent light curves. This must be due to the fact
1082: that the model concerned is too simple, where we consider only
1083: emissions with constant spectra. When the intrinsic spectrum varies
1084: with time, one would expect bursts with both variable spectra and
1085: bent light curves (the well-known $t^{-(2+\beta)}$ curve suggests
1086: that light curves of fireballs are strongly affected by the
1087: corresponding emission spectra). Indeed, we find that both variable
1088: spectra and bent light curves happen to appear in the same period
1089: for many Swift bursts (see Zhang et al. 2007 and the UNLV GRB Group
1090: web-site http://grb.physics.unlv.edu).
1091:
1092: Since for some bursts their early X-ray afterglow spectra evolve
1093: with time while for some others their spectra have no significant
1094: temporal evolution (Zhang et al. 2007; Butler \& Kocevski 2007b), we
1095: suspect that there might be two kinds of mechanism accounting for
1096: the X-ray afterglow emission. It seems likely that the observed
1097: variation of spectra is due to an intrinsic spectral evolution. The
1098: intrinsic spectral evolution would probably lead to deviations of
1099: the light curves studied above (those studied in Figs. 3-7). We thus
1100: suspect that the bursts with no spectral evolution might have
1101: ``normal'' temporal profiles, while others might exhibit somewhat
1102: ``abnormal'' profiles. This seems to be the case according to Figs.
1103: 1-3 in Zhang et al. (2007) and Figs. 7-8 in Butler \& Kocevski
1104: (2007b).
1105:
1106: Our simple model tends to account for the kind of bursts that their
1107: X-ray afterglow spectra do not evolved with time. However, for many
1108: bursts with roughly constant spectra and power-law light curves, the
1109: curves are too shallow to be accounted for by the $t^{-(2+\beta)}$
1110: curve (see http://grb.physics.unlv.edu). Our model seems too simple
1111: to account for the majority of XRT light curve data of Swift bursts.
1112: It is therefore necessary to explore more complicated cases. For
1113: example, a variant Lorentz factor (which is expectable when the
1114: intrinsic emission is long enough) might play a role. Would it
1115: affect the slope of the decaying curve? We are looking forward to
1116: see more investigations on this issue in the near future.
1117:
1118: Before ending this paper, we would like to point out that quantity
1119: $t_{0,c}$ is the co-moving time measured by a co-moving observer
1120: when the fireball radius reaches $R_c$ (see Qin 2002). Note that,
1121: $t_{0,0} > t_{0,c}$. Therefore, when assigning $t_{0,c} = 0$,
1122: $t_{0,0} = 1s$ means $1s$ co-moving time has passed after $R = R_c$.
1123: When one analyzes the emission associated with $R_c = 10^{15} cm$,
1124: $t_{0,0} = 0$ refers only the emission at $t_{0,c} = 0$ which is the
1125: co-moving time when $R = R_c$. Although we take quite small values
1126: of $t_{0,0}$ in the above analysis, it does not correspond to early
1127: emission when we adopt $R_c = 10^{15} cm$ or $R_c = 10^{13} cm$.
1128: Therefore, our analysis on emission from fireballs with $R_c =
1129: 10^{15} cm$ does not put forward any constraint on the prompt
1130: emission. The conclusion that characteristics of the prompt emission
1131: of bursts with shallow decay phase are similar to those without
1132: shallow decay phase obtained recently by Liang et al. (2007) are not
1133: violated by our findings.
1134:
1135: \acknowledgments
1136:
1137: This work was supported by the National Science Fund for
1138: Distinguished Young Scholars (10125313), the National Natural
1139: Science Foundation of China (No. 10573005), and the Fund for Top
1140: Scholars of Guangdong Provience (Q02114). We also thank the
1141: financial support from the Guangzhou Education Bureau and Guangzhou
1142: Science and Technology Bureau.
1143:
1144: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1145:
1146: \item[]Barthelmy, S. D. et al. 2005, ApJ, 635, L133
1147:
1148: \item[]Butler, N. R. \& Kocevski, D. 2007a, ApJ, 663, 407
1149:
1150: \item[]Butler, N. R. \& Kocevski, D. 2007b, ApJ, accepted,
1151: (astro-ph/0702638)
1152:
1153: \item[]Chincarini, G. et al. 2005, preprint, (astro-ph/0506453)
1154:
1155: \item[]Cusumano, G. et al. 2006, ApJ, 639, 316
1156:
1157: \item[]Dermer, C. D. 2004, ApJ, 614, 284
1158:
1159: \item[]Dyks, J. et al. 2005, preprint, astro-ph/0511699
1160:
1161: \item[]Fenimore, E. E. et al. 1996, ApJ, 473, 998
1162:
1163: \item[]Granot, J., Piran, T., Sari, R. 1999, ApJ, 513, 679
1164:
1165: \item[]Kocevski, D., Ryde, F., Liang, E. 2003, ApJ, 596, 389
1166:
1167: \item[]Kumar, P. \& Panaitescu, A. 2000, ApJ, 541, L51
1168:
1169: \item[]Liang, E. W. et al. 2006, ApJ, 646, 351
1170:
1171: \item[]Liang, E. W. et al. 2007, ApJ, 670, 565 (astro-ph/0705.1373)
1172:
1173: \item[]Lu, R.-J., Qin, Y.-P., Zhang, Z.-B., Yi, T.-F. 2006, MNRAS,
1174: 367, 275
1175:
1176: \item[]Nousek , J. A. et al. 2006, ApJ, 642, 389
1177:
1178: \item[]O'Brien, P. T. et al. 2006, ApJ, 647, 1213
1179:
1180: \item[]Panaitescu, A. et al. 2006, MNRAS, 366, 1357
1181:
1182: \item[]Peng, Z.-Y., Qin, Y.-P., Zhang, B.-B., Lu, R.-J., Jia,
1183: L.-W., Zhang, Z.-B. 2006, MNRAS, 368, 1351
1184:
1185: \item[]Qin, Y.-P. 2002, A\&A, 396, 705
1186:
1187: \item[]Qin, Y.-P. et al. 2004, ApJ, 617, 439
1188:
1189: \item[]Qin, Y.-P. \& Lu, R.-J. 2005, MNRAS, 362, 1085
1190:
1191: \item[]Qin, Y.-P. et al. 2005, ApJ, 632, 1008
1192:
1193: \item[]Qin, Y.-P. et al. 2006, Phys. Rev. D 74, 063005
1194:
1195: \item[]Ryde, F. \& Petrosian, V. 2002, ApJ, 578, 290
1196:
1197: \item[]Sari, R., \& Piran, T. 1997, ApJ, 485, 270
1198:
1199: \item[]Sari, R., Piran, T., \& Narayan, R. 1998, ApJ, 497, L17
1200:
1201: \item[]Shen, R.-F. et al. 2005, MNRAS, 362, 59
1202:
1203: \item[]Tagliaferri, G. et al. 2005, Nature, 436, 985
1204:
1205: \item[]Vaughan, S. et al. 2006, ApJ, 638, 920
1206:
1207: \item[]Zhang, B., Fan, Y. Z., Dyks, J. et al. 2006, ApJ, 642, 354
1208:
1209: \item[]Zhang, B.-B. et al. 2007, ApJ, in press, (astro-ph/0612246)
1210:
1211: \item[]Zhang, B. 2007, ChJAA, 7, 1
1212:
1213: \end{thebibliography}
1214:
1215: \end{document}
1216:
1217:
1218:
1219:
1220: %%
1221: %% End of file `sample.tex'.
1222: